BY SAM ALFAN.
A gambler has failed to convince a judge how she won more than Sh99 million from a betting firm in game in a game dubbed magic numbers.
In a win for Betika, High Court judge Alfred Mabeya dismissed Claire Nyabayo’s claim that she was short charged by the betting firm.
Justice Mabeya upheld the decision of Betting Control and Licensing Board to award her Sh1 million saying it was stated in the terms and conditions of the game.
The judge added that the evidence on record suggests that system issue may have led to unusually high payments.
“Therefore, while the court recognizes Nyabayo’s right to compensation, it would constitute unjust enrichment for her to benefit from winnings generated by a faulty system,” ruled the judge.
Nyabayo challenged decision of the betting Board after they Board held Betika should pay her maximum of Sh1 million instead of Sh99,976,365.
She faulted the Board claiming it erred by not directing Betika Company to pay the full amount which was Sh. 99,976,365.
According to the punter, the Board was wrong in capping the amount at Sh1 million.
“That the Board erred in taking the manufacturers position that the game identified and confirmed a system problem referred to as an internal bug,” Nyabayo argued.
She further faulted the Board for failing to find the Betika Company accountable for withholding her winnings for almost two years.
She prayed for to be paid Sh99.9 million plus interest.
The woman also challenged the impartiality of the game developers, Split the Pot AB, regarding their claim of a critical bug, citing lack of evidence on when the bug occurred.
Nyabayo submitted that while Betika accused her of exploiting the game, it did not specify how her actions were exploitative or how they affected the game or website.
Additionally, she said Betika failed to identify the relevant terms and conditions applicable at the time of her winnings.
She submitted that the Board incorrectly relied on terms and conditions about maximum winnings that were not in effect during the appellant’s game on January 2nd and 3rd, 2022, suggesting these terms were introduced during the dispute.
Betika opposed the appeal by defending the Board arguing that the Board did not error in failing to direct the payment Sh. 99,979,365.61, as the decision was consistent with the terms and conditions of the game which capped the maximum payout at Sh.1 million That according to those terms, if the system generated winnings exceeding the maximum amount, any excess is considered void and not payable.
The gambling firm submitted that a report from the manufacturer of the game “Magic Numbers” revealed that the multiplier was incorrectly calculated due to a flaw in the game logic, leading to an unusually high multiplier.
That the bets followed similar patterns and settings, with betting amounts increasing significantly in a short period, despite the initial account balances being relatively low.
The company Nyabayo used the same device and browser, placing bets within a 9-hour window. That in the premises, to pay her Sh. 99,979,365.61 would result in unjust enrichment, as the excessive winnings stemmed from a critical system bug.
It was emphasized that there was a valid contract between Nyabayo and Betika, governed by terms and conditions that the she had accepted, and that the game manufacturer had the best understanding of the game’s internal mechanics.
The judge said the burden of proof is on the person who alleges and in the case before him, the woman failed to prove her case.
“In the present case, Nyabayo’s case is that the Board was wrong in relying on terms and conditions that were not in existence at the time she placed her wager. She failed to produce those terms and conditions so that the Court can test them and the veracity of her claim. See sections 107, 108 and 112 of the Evidence Act, Cap 80 Laws of Kenya,” said the judge.
Justice Mabeya added that to the extent that those terms and conditions were produced before the Board and the Board not only referred to them but relied on them in arriving at its decision, the court cannot pronounce itself on them and neither can it disturb the Board’s decision on them.
